|
|
Post by Cranky on Jun 30, 2005 8:23:58 GMT -5
I was reading another post where posters were suggesting that we trade prospects for players. That is the wrong approach with the new NHL.
The reality is that teams will still overpay for the stars, but not as stupidly as before. The new thinking has to be that you "grow" your own through the draft system and ADD the best sub-million players that will sign to you. Prospects are now more valuable then they use to be because that is on of the ONLY ways you can keep your costs under control. So stop trading them away! LOL!
It will be interesting to see what middle of the road players like Zednik and Bulis get for their new contracts. What tells me that these type of players are going to pay the brunt of the cap restrictions? Would a team like the Hab's pay out 1.5 million for a Bulis type if someone in the AHL can fill in at $350,000. Would Zednik type get 2.4 million if he only produces 25 goals a year? Why not hire Palffy at 3.5 million?
There is going to be a new way of thinking in the NHL that the HabsRus armchair GM's and the real GM have to adjust to.
The way to succeed as a GM is.....
1. Spend more on getting and developing good prospects.
2. Think cheap but good enough, in other words "cost effective".
|
|
|
|
Post by mic on Jun 30, 2005 8:30:37 GMT -5
But the counterpart is that the UFA is supposed to go down. So, is it still so attractive to train (and pay) young players who will be productive during, say, four to five years (24 years old to free agency) until they leave ? While there will be many free agents who are still relatively in their prime (28 ? 29? 30 ?) available ? Why take time to developp when you suddenly have a lot more players on the market who are ready to play ?
EDIT : I just saw you said something similar on the other thread
|
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Jun 30, 2005 8:58:01 GMT -5
But the counterpart is that the UFA is supposed to go down. So, is it still so attractive to train (and pay) young players who will be productive during, say, four to five years (24 years old to free agency) until they leave ? While there will be many free agents who are still relatively in their prime (28 ? 29? 30 ?) available ? Why take time to developp when you suddenly have a lot more players on the market who are ready to play ? EDIT : I just saw you said something similar on the other thread At this point, we do not know if the UFA has changed, unless of course I missed something. If the UFA remains in the 30-31 range, then it's still worth investing to develop the talent. If the UFA is 27-28 then we have a problem particularly for defensive prospects. Most defenseman are in their mid 20's before they become useful enough to play in the NHL and at which point, the team has already invested a lot of money into them. The opinion I offered in the other thread is consistent with the thread here. Why would we trade "cheap and cheerful" offensive prospects and probably lose out on a lobsided trade when we can hire someone just as "cost effective"? Remember the word.... cost effective. Sheesh....now we are going to think like WalMart GM's...  |
|
|
|
Post by BadCompany on Jun 30, 2005 9:00:27 GMT -5
It will be interesting to see what middle of the road players like Zednik and Bulis get for their new contracts. What tells me that these type of players are going to pay the brunt of the cap restrictions? Would a team like the Hab's pay out 1.5 million for a Bulis type if someone in the AHL can fill in at $350,000. Would Zednik type get 2.4 million if he only produces 25 goals a year? Why not hire Palffy at 3.5 million? Sounds vaguely familiar… Lets assume a $40 million cap, just for fun. Who here wouldn’t give Jarome Iginla $7 million of that? Koivu and Zednik for Iginla? Or, how about Chris Pronger? Would you trade Patrice Brisebois ($4.5 million) and Craig Rivet ($3.5 million) for Pronger? How much would you bid to get 20 year old Rick Nash, ultra-power forward in the making, already with a 40 goal season under his belt, on an expansion team with no supporting cast, in this the watered-down-defense first NHL? The stars are going to get their money. Don’t you worry about them. The guys who are going to get hammered are the middle-class and lower-class citizens of the NHL. Just like real life. Always kind of made me chuckle when people said that the union wasn’t fighting for the lower-end players. It’s the lower end players who made the most in the old NHL. With regards to their talent anyways. How many guys made the minimum NHL wage? One? None? How much did Pierre Dagenais make last season? $800,000? That’s silly. He’s a guy who had been cut – not picked off of waivers, but actually cleared waivers and released – not once, but TWICE, before the age of 25. He made about $500,000 more than he should have, because of everything the union did before him. Same for Steve Begin, Jason Ward, and Francis Bouillon. Nice guys, hard workers, but come on. These are the guys that are going to get creamed in the new NHL. Especially if minor league salaries count towards the cap. No more Karl Dykhuis and Patrick Traverse collecting paychecks in the AHL – if they count, then they’ll be gone. Who gets screwed in the NFL? Michael Vick? Or Joe Nobody, bench player? Guys like Noodle-Head Dagenais should have been arguing AGAINST the cap, in my opinion. Because they’re going to pay the price under it. But the counterpart is that the UFA is supposed to go down. So, is it still so attractive to train (and pay) young players who will be productive during, say, four to five years (24 years old to free agency) until they leave ? While there will be many free agents who are still relatively in their prime (28 ? 29? 30 ?) available ? Why take time to developp when you suddenly have a lot more players on the market who are ready to play ? EDIT : I just saw you said something similar on the other thread Yep. All those lovely trades we like to dream about could be a thing of the past. Not only is it too complicated to work out under the cap system – how much does 13 games of Kovalev count towards the cap? – but there isn’t much point. There will always be a slew of guys available every year, especially if the buy-out rules are made easier. Look to the NFL again. |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Jun 30, 2005 9:16:24 GMT -5
Yep. All those lovely trades we like to dream about could be a thing of the past. Not only is it too complicated to work out under the cap system – how much does 13 games of Kovalev count towards the cap? – but there isn’t much point. There will always be a slew of guys available every year, especially if the buy-out rules are made easier. Look to the NFL again. Fans live on hope and dreams. No badly infected fan is going to stop dreaming about stealing someone's else top players for their re-threads and broken hockey sticks. As for real trades. Talent will be given equal consideration with cap room. A Kovalev may be available but will he sign for 1 million if it's the only cap room available? Will managers make secret deals with other managers to "trade" for expensive players at the last minute? One thing I know for sure, you are not going to see GM's throwing away their second and third rounders for playoff help. Ahh....change.....and money no longers buys everything BUT actually constricts you! Gotta love it! |
|
|
|
Post by Habs_fan_in_LA on Jun 30, 2005 11:45:48 GMT -5
In college when given the choice of growing my own or paying premium prices for proven quality imported................oops, wrong topic.
|
|
|
|
Post by Doc Holliday on Jun 30, 2005 12:00:17 GMT -5
Well I've always been of the opinion that you don't answer present needs with future solutions.
I agree that drafting and devellopment will be of major importance (but then again it's always been) and that prospects are key assets but not only because of the roster spot they may fill but as well for the manoeuvre room they can provide in trade talks.
A GM job is about team building which will touch drafting, devellopment, trades and signing. Concentrating on only one aspect will not spell out sucess even if that one aspect touches prospects.
|
|
|
|
Post by Habit on Jun 30, 2005 12:38:32 GMT -5
For me, you need 4 legs to make a team. Trades, Drafting, FA signing and Waiver Wire. You need all 4! The difference of experience is what makes a team.
Take away trades or FA signing. How will can you get experience for the playoffs? If all you have is players you draft, come playoff time, you have limited experience. You have to have a good variety of players from all aspects of the game.
That is how you build a team. Look at teams that choose to only go one or two routes instead of all 4 *cough Leafs*. They had Trades and FA signings, and virtually no drafts and Waiver's. Look where it gets them.
Take a look at Detroit and NJ. Even Colorado. good balance of all.
Different experiences makes a team.
|
|
|
|
Post by M. Beaux-Eaux on Jun 30, 2005 12:49:08 GMT -5
Same as it ever was. Plus ça change, c'est le même chose.
Except, while player salaries decline, those of proven-value GMs, coaches, and scouts may increase radically, if they are to be the new "stars" of the game—maybe they will now become subjects of more aggressive bidding wars.
|
|
